Thought From Today’s Old Testament Passage:
[2 Samuel 15:31-37] When [David] heard that Ahithophel was in the plot he lifted up his heart to God in this short prayer: Lord, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness, v. 31. He had not opportunity for a long prayer, but he was not one of those that thought he should be heard for his much speaking. It was a fervent prayer: "Lord, I pray thee, do this.’’ God is well pleased with the importunity of those that come to him with their petitions. David is particular in this prayer; he names the person whose counsels he prays against. God gives us leave, in prayer, to be humbly and reverently free with him, and to mention the particular care, and fear, and grief, that lies heavily upon us. David prayed not against Ahithophel’s person, but against his counsel, that God would turn it into foolishness, that, though he was a wise man, he might at this time give foolish counsel, or, if he gave wise counsel, that it might be rejected as foolish, or, if it were followed, that by some providence or other it might be defeated, and not attain the end. David prayed this in a firm belief that God has all hearts in his hand, and tongues too, that, when he pleases, he can take away the understanding of the aged and make the judges fools, (Job 12:17; Isa. 3:2, 3), and in hope that God would own and plead his just and injured cause. Note, We may pray in faith, and should pray with fervency, that God will turn that counsel into foolishness which is taken against his people.
Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers), 1997 (computer file)
The John Ankerberg Show | P.O. Box 8977 | Chattanooga, TN 37414 USA
(423) 892-7722 | For credit card orders only:
The three different views of prophecy. What Scriptures that show God's promise to Israel concerning their land and a future king who will sit on David's throne is unconditional? Do the Old and New Testaments teach the future bodily return of Jesus Christ to reign on earth from Jerusalem? What are the intellectual consequences of denying premillennialism?